How do we approach ESL tutorials in the writing center? Do we treat ESL students differently than our other students? Should we use more directive techniques to help them learn the rules of the English language? These questions continue to plague new tutors; in fact, ESL tutorials are perhaps among the most dreaded of all tutorials for "newbies." This is particularly true of tutors uncomfortable with grammatical rules and forms. They anxiously wonder how they will be able to "teach" these students to "write in English." Some mistakenly believe they need a foundation in these students' first languages in order to be successful. Others worry that they need special ESL training to best help these students. Their fears and questions are not unreasonable; the task does seem daunting at first. However, we must remember that, even with ESL students, our job is not to teach; it is to provide a collaborative environment conducive to learning and development. A quick look at Stephen Krashen's language acquisition theory reveals that the same collaborative techniques we use with native English speakers can be equally helpful to ESL students.
In short, Krashen argues that second language learners acquire language naturally and unconsciously. Thus, ESL students develop their ability to use English through the same process we did when we were children. We did not learn how to effectively or correctly use the language by memorizing and then following a set of formulaic rules taught to us by our elders; rather, we acquired the language because we were constantly surrounded by other people using it. According to Krashen, the ESL students we encounter will not further develop their language skills because we pump them full of rules. At best, such an arsenal of rules can only serve as a "monitor" for language learners. For example, when I was still a very young girl, my mother would correct me every time I said something like "Me and Valerie played hopscotch at recess." "Valerie and I played hopscotch!" she'd bellow in response. "It's I and it comes last!" I didn't really understand why she kept doing that because I always heard people saying "Me and so-and-so." Thus, no matter how many times she corrected me and recited that rule, I kept saying it wrong until eventually, I'd start saying, "Me and Val--uh, I mean Valerie and I." The constant repetition of the rule resulted in memorization for me; but I adapted the rule only as a "monitor" to check the usage of the incorrect construction, which I had acquired through my linguistic environment. In the same way, simply reciting rules and correcting mistakes (even for pattern errors) for ESL students does little to help them in Krashen's view.
What, then, does work? If we can't rely on correction and rule recitation, what are we supposed to do with our ESL students? Krashen says that learners of a second language "acquire [it] by understanding language that contains structure a bit beyond [their] current level of competence" (21). The only way to truly acquire a language is through immersion in a linguistic environment that provides "comprehensible input." Sounds complicated, right? It really isn't, though. The writing center, in its very nature, is a linguistic environment; writers meet with other writers to discuss writing. We're chock-full of language! Thus, all we need to do with ESL students is provide that mysterious sounding "comprehensible input."
The first step to providing comprehensible input is to garner an understanding of what the student already comprehends. This assessment need not be difficult or scientific, nor do we need to be first-rate detectives to accomplish it. Tutors just need to be aware and listen carefully during the introductory part of the tutorial. The student's responses to questions as simple as "How are you doing today?" and "What are you working on?" are clues to his level of linguistic comprehension. Simply noting the sentence structures and vocabulary he employs can give us an idea of where he stands linguistically. Obviously, a student with one word answers like "Fine" or simple sentences like "This is paper for my writing class" feels less comfortable with the language than a student who replies with "Ok, but I'm tired a little" or "I'm writing a paper that is an argument that cloning is wrong." Their level of comfort usually reflects, at least to some extent, their level of comprehension. Reading the paper also reveals comprehension level. How complex are the student's sentence structures and vocabulary here? Whether we're aware of it or not, we already conduct this very kind of assessment in all of our tutorials. It's the information we acquire in those first few minutes that we use to determine the direction and format of the tutorial. How else do you explain the variation between what and how we choose to verbally approach tutorials?
This leads to the next step towards applying Krashen's theory: to control the content and structures of the tutorial. As I've said, this is something we already (probably unconsciously) do. Think about it: we constantly make decisions about the content and structure of our feedback and discussion. Though we may not realize it, what we say and how we say it is part of the ESL learner's unconscious acquisition of English. This is exactly what Krashen urges language teachers to do; this is providing comprehensible input! The only other element to making comprehensible input actually comprehensible is to provide contextual and other extra-linguistic clues. Again, this is something we probably already do in all of our tutorials. Sitting face to face and talking with a student makes it easier to see when they've "gotten" something you've said and when they haven't. Plus, asking questions, such as "Do you see what I mean?" can clue us into comprehension. Quizzical looks or unconvincing "uh-huhs" mean we have to try again. Often, our second attempts include drawings or hand gestures in addition to rewording. Rewording, itself, often includes using contextual examples. Sometimes, of course, this may be harder to ascertain of ESL students because of cultural differences. They may try to fool you, for lack of a better word, into believing they "get" everything you've said. Thus, to be even more effective with ESL students, we can simply incorporate our second attempt solutions into our first. For example, suppose I am trying to help my ESL student develop a stronger thesis. We would begin by talking about it: "What exactly is the main point that you are trying to make about this?" I might ask. After listening to his response (which is probably still not clear), I might say, "So--what I think you're saying is that because of such-and-such, blankety-blank has occurred, or happened." At the same time, I might be punctuating my statement by drawing out the elements of the statement in a diagram, with "suchandsuch" in a block above a block containing " blankety-blank," where a downward pointing arrow makes the connection between the two. Thus, I would be providing both linguistic clues and non-linguistic clues. The student might very well then acquire the use of a "because construction" to show cause and effect, and he might even acquire a new vocabulary word: "happened."
Of course, the results may not always be that immediate; in fact, even if the student picks it up in speech, it may take a while for it to progress to his writing. However, learning is not immediate; it is progressive. And in the writing center, we're not in the business of creating immediate results. Our goal is to promote development of long-term abilities. It may seem difficult to avoid error-correction and direct instruction of rules and form with our ESL students, but if we really want to be helpful in the long run, we must. For filling them to the brim with rules and regulations isn't going to help them any more than my mother helped me, uh, I mean I, no, me all those years ago.
Jennifer Beattie
Winthrop University
Rock Hill, SC
Gale Document Number:A198354731